By Steven Flagg
Guest Column
In a recent column, I wrote that Toledo Public Schools is in a “world of hurt” — driven by declining enrollment, reduced state support and a system built for a different era. That was not a prediction. It was the reality the Board of Education now confronts.
Now, the Board has acted.
In a unanimous vote, the Toledo Board of Education approved its Transformation Plan 2.0, a sweeping set of actions begun in December 2025 designed to close a nearly $70 million deficit. The plan includes the closure or repurposing of eight buildings — Harvard Elementary, Martin Luther King Jr. Academy for Boys, Navarre, Pickett, Spring, Walbridge, Westfield Achievement Academy and Heatherdowns — along with staffing reductions, program changes and negotiated concessions from administrative leadership.
At this time, leadership of the TFT and AFSCME bargaining units have not agreed to concessions. Consequently, planned staff reductions still loom for their membership. TFT leadership claims they need more information about the assumptions used to make these decisions, especially those used to project future enrollment. They are correct — the entire community should have that information. Still, there is no denying the population decline and its impact on TPS, Toledo and Lucas County.
These were not easy decisions. Board members said as much, acknowledging both the financial necessity and the deep community impact. “These decisions were not made lightly,” Board leadership stated.
And they are correct.
The district is facing a structural imbalance that cannot be ignored. Enrollment continues to decline, driven by a sharply reduced pipeline of future students, with births in Lucas County down more than 30 percent over the past two decades. At the same time, the district is losing a larger share of a smaller student population to charter schools and vouchers.
In that context, maintaining a system of buildings designed for a much larger enrollment is simply not sustainable. District data shows average building utilization at roughly 70 percent, with several of the schools identified for closure among the lowest-utilized buildings in the system — a pattern consistent with a capacity-driven decision rather than a geographic one.
So, the Board did what it ultimately had to do: it reduced capacity.
But acting is not the same as explaining.
And that is where significant questions remain.
The public has been told what decisions were made. It has not been fully shown how those decisions were reached. The Board must explain why to parents, students and taxpayers.
For example, were building-level enrollment trends, capacity and cost-per-student data publicly presented in a way that clearly demonstrated why specific schools were selected over others? Were alternative scenarios modeled and shared with the community? How were factors such as geographic equity, neighborhood impact, potential leakage to charter schools and vouchers and program performance weighed against utilization and cost?
These are not academic questions. They go directly to trust.
The recent focus on South Toledo building closures illustrates this problem clearly. Without transparent data, decisions that are likely driven by utilization and capacity can appear to be driven by geography. The distinction matters — and it has not been clearly proven.
There are also forward-looking questions that remain unanswered.
If enrollment continues to decline — and all available data suggests it will — is this the final round of closures, or simply the first?
What is the long-term facilities plan? How does the Scott Park project factor into future plans if enrollment continues to decline? How will the district ensure that today’s decisions do not lead to repeated disruption over the next several years? How will the proposed changes be implemented, and how will they impact students and families?
Equally important, what is the vision beyond contraction? And how will the Board activate the community’s expertise and resources — beyond meetings and surveys — to help shape that vision?
Right-sizing the system is necessary. It is not sufficient.
How will TPS use this moment to strengthen its educational model beyond adjustments to existing career-tech and magnet programs? How will it compete more effectively for students in a landscape where families have more choices? What investments will be made to improve program quality and retain and attract students?
And perhaps most critically: how will the district rebuild trust with a community that, by many accounts, felt surprised by both the timing and scope of these decisions?
The Board has now acted. And that was necessary and unavoidable.
The next step is just as important: clearly demonstrating the rationale behind those decisions and laying out a transparent, long-term path forward.
The community can accept difficult choices. But not if they don’t understand why decisions were made, how they will be implemented, and what comes next. At the same time, parents and community members must recognize that demographic shifts will affect the entire region and all of its institutions.
Criticism and frustration are understandable but not antidotes for action.
The Board has acted. Now it must fully show its work, rebuild trust and define what comes next — because the decisions ahead will be challenging.